Journal of Service ManagementManaging brands and customer engagement in online brand communitiesJochen Wirtz Anouk den Ambtman Josée Bloemer Csilla Horváth B. Ramaseshan Joris van de KlundertZeynep Gurhan Canli Jay Kandampully

Article information:To cite this document:Jochen Wirtz Anouk den Ambtman Josée Bloemer Csilla Horváth B. Ramaseshan Joris van de KlundertZeynep Gurhan Canli Jay Kandampully, (2013),"Managing brands and customer engagement in onlinebrand communities", Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 223 - 244Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326978

Downloaded on: 05 November 2014, At: 05:22 (PT)References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3940 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Carol Kelleher, Andrew Whalley, Anu Helkkula, (2011),"Collaborative Value Co-Creation in Crowd-SourcedOnline Communities – Acknowledging and Resolving Competing Commercial and Communal Orientations",Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 13 pp. 1-18Richard C. Leventhal, Elaine Wallace, Isabel Buil, Leslie de Chernatony, (2014),"Consumer engagementwith self-expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes", Journal of Product & BrandManagement, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 33-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0326Bo Edvardsson, Bo Enquist, Michael Hay, (2006),"Values#based service brands: narratives from IKEA",Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 230-246

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 215518 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Managing brands and customerengagement in online brand

communitiesJochen Wirtz

NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Anouk den Ambtman, Josee Bloemer and Csilla HorvathInstitute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen,

Nijmegen, The Netherlands

B. RamaseshanSchool of Marketing, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Joris van de KlundertInstitute for Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Zeynep Gurhan CanliGraduate School of Business, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey, and

Jay KandampullyDepartment of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio, USA

Abstract

Purpose – Given the dramatic technology-led changes that continue to take place in the marketplace,researchers and practitioners alike are keen to understand the emergence and implications of onlinebrand communities (OBCs). The purpose of this paper is to explore OBCs from both consumer andcompany perspectives.

Design/methodology/approach – The study provides a synthesis of the extant OBC literature tofurther our understanding of OBCs, and also puts forth future priorities for OBC research.

Findings – A conceptual framework is provided that extends our understanding of OBCs andconsumer engagement. Four key OBC dimensions (brand orientation, internet-use, funding andgovernance) are identified and three antecedents (brand-related, social and functional) are proposed ofconsumer-OBC engagement.

Originality/value – This study is the first to explore key dimensions of OBCs, and the differing butrelated perspectives of the consumers and organizations involved.

Keywords Internet, Communities, Brands, Social networks, Online brand community,Consumer behaviour, Brand management, Customer engagement, Brand engagement, Brand equity,Community governance, Community funding

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe dramatic change that has taken place in our societies and in our economies sincethe nineteenth century is reflected clearly in the development of our communities.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-5818.htm

Received 5 November 2012Revised 10 January 2013

Accepted 30 January 2013

Journal of Service ManagementVol. 24 No. 3, 2013

pp. 223-244q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1757-5818DOI 10.1108/09564231311326978

Online brandcommunities

223

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Where previously unheard of, consumption communities came into existence with theintroduction of mass media and modern marketing. As a result, people have increasinglybased their societal identity on their consumptive role, related their identity to thebrands they consume, and developed fairly defined consumer identities. While the firstbrand communities (BCs) emerged as an outcome of high levels of customer-brandengagement, the last decade has seen a proliferation of online BCs (many of which nowoperate on a global scale) as the result of the massive adoption of advances in internet,social media and mobile technologies. These developments have compelledorganizations to embrace these online brand communities (OBCs), and by 2012, some50 percent of the top 100 global brands had established an OBC (Manchanda et al., 2012).However, a key question for firms wanting to develop an effective OBC is what exactlydetermines consumer engagement in such a community? We begin this paper byproviding an overview of OBCs, and point out the differences between them and moretraditional BCs before turning directly to the question at hand.

Key characteristics of OBCsMuniz and O’Guinn (2001, p. 412) first introduced the concept of BCs to the marketingliterature, defining them as “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based ona structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand”. This definition takes asociological perspective and is rooted in the construct of community as a network of socialrelations marked by mutuality and social bonds (Bender, 1978). Taking the consumer’sperspective, a brand has been defined as the promise of satisfaction arising from a bundleof attributes associated with a purchase (Ambler, 1992). This definition assumes that atransaction takes place in which the item is purchased. In this paper, we adopt theconvention that a BC is a community of consumers who perceive added value from therelationship with the brand, and exclude other forms of relationships people might havewith a brand, for example, that of fans or activists. In line with these definitions, we rule outalso brands without consumers such as Greenpeace and political parties.

The consumer’s perspective of a brand presented above is quite different from thatof a provider, who more typically think of his brand in the context of marketingmanagement activities. The provider has to consider the brand’s name, design,symbol and any other feature that identifies it as distinct from another (Lovelockand Wirtz, 2007, pp. 187-189). While this provider-focused view also requires acommercial transaction, the focus is on selling, as opposed to buying. De Chernatony andDall’Olmo Riley (1998) take both the company and consumer perspective on brands andalso discuss brands as relationships that exist between the consumer and the provider,and requires first that the provider’s brand has an identity with which consumers canengage in a relationship. Combining these perspectives, we define BCs as network ofrelations between providers and brand consumers who attach a certain value toengaging in a relationship with both the provider and with the brand’s other consumers.

Much like other communities, Muniz and O’Guin (2001) suggest that BCs aremarked by the following three factors:

(1) A shared consciousness, that is, an intrinsic connection members feel withone another. This can also be described as a “we-ness”, or a sense that members“sort of know each other” at some level, even if they have never met. This sharedconsciousness is often associated also with a collective sense of difference fromothers not in that community.

JOSM24,3

224

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

(2) Rituals and traditions that perpetuate the community’s shared history, cultureand consciousness, and that inculcate certain behavioral norms and values thattypically center on shared consumption experiences with the brand.

(3) A sense of moral responsibility which is a felt sense of duty or responsibility tothe community as a whole, and to its individual members that contribute tocollective action and group cohesion.

Muniz and O’Guin (2001) place the development of brands and BCs in the context of thedevelopment of mass media and modern marketing which started in the early nineteenthcentury. These developments have simulated, if not replicated the hallmarks of thelong-established geographical communities. In this view, the emergence of OBCs inthe modern society is just the latest step in a long evolution of communities. Firms cannotignore this development as consumers have been known to start OBCs without theinvolvement of the provider. What’s more, some OBCs may switch or share allegianceswith a competitor’s brands, and the more attractive OBCs may be supported bycompetitors’ brands.

The following is our analysis of the nature of BCs as drawn from a review of theliterature and interviews with industry experts. We identify four key dimensions thatsignificantly shape an OBC:

(1) Brand orientation. The core focus of an OBC can be the brand itself (includingbrand-related consumption experiences such as riding a Harley Davidson bike),a wider shared interest (e.g. biking in general), or both.

(2) Internet-use. BCs can be offline, online or both. For the purpose of this article,we consider both entirely online and online/offline hybrid BCs as OBCs.

(3) Funding and governance. OBCs can range from being entirely funded by thebrand, to being fully funded by the community of enthusiasts. Likewise, OBCscan be governed either entirely by the brand at one extreme, or entirely by theBC at the other.

Figure 1 schematically shows the interplay of the first two aforementioned dimensions.The typical OBC would sit in the top right quadrant (dark shading), where its corevalue is delivered via an online platform, and the core focus of the community is thebrand itself. The lower left quadrant applies to off line communities which are orientedtowards an interest that is shared by its members. Such communities do not fit well inthe evolutionary development of internet enabled consumer communities discussedabove, and are beyond the scope of this article. In the next section, we discuss the firsttwo dimensions of OBCs in more depth.

Brand orientationThe vertical dimension in Figure 1 shows the brand orientation of the BC. Traditionally,BCs have been oriented strongly towards the brand itself. Gruen and Ferguson (1994)called members of such BCs “active loyalists,” as they tend to be committed to thebrand, and are almost passionate about it. The BCs who are most frequently celebrated inthe literature have strong brand identities and active loyalists. They include car somebrands (Algesheimer et al., 2005), and the Harley Owners Groups (HOGs) (Fournier andLee, 2009).

Online brandcommunities

225

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Brands whose identities appear to be less strongly developed may also successfullybuild OBCs if they focus on a wider shared interest rather than on the brand itself. Theinternet and mobile technology provides a new space in which communities andrelationships can be developed at low cost, and such media present a strategic opportunityto develop a BC which may enlarge a provider’s existing brand identity. The resultantonline community may serve as a platform for both providers and consumers to co-createadditional value that stretches beyond the existing brand identity and value proposition(Schau et al., 2009). For example, the OBC of wheat brand King Arthur Flour is orientedtowards baking in general, rather than around specific products. As Fournier andLee (2009, pp. 106-107) observed, this may be because community members are often “moreinterested in the social links that come from BCs than they are in the brands themselves”.

Online versus offline BCsMany BCs emerged in the pre-internet area and added their online presence andfunctionality only at a later stage. For instance, Harley Davidsons’s HOG started in1983 and now has a strong and vibrant online community as well as real-world events.Likewise, Lego developed online environments for the many Lego fan clubs thatalready existed offline. Collectively, the groups have now evolved into a global OBC(Hatch and Schultz, 2010). A BC that is started today might also develop reversely, andstart online before a real-world dimension is emerges when this is perceived to be ofadded value. For example, members may enjoy meeting face-to-face after havinginteracted online for some time, and they may also engage in activities that cannot bedone online such as baking, tasting cakes or exchanging Lego.

As the internet and social media continue to develop rapidly, and as they continue tosignificantly drive the concepts of identity and community, we believe that the continuumstretching between online and offline presence will be an important most definingdimension of a BC. Table I shows the key differences between purely online and purelyoffline communities to highlight the dissimilarities and the new characteristics of OBCs.A key observation from Table I is that the low cost and global reach of OBCs (as opposedto offline BCs) changes their nature. On the one hand, the OBC allows members to reveallittle of their identity, only passively engage in relationships, work minimally atsustaining rituals and traditions and only weakly develop consciousness of any kind thatwould lead them to carry a moral responsibility (e.g. see Preece et al., 2004 for a discussion

Figure 1.OBC modes of interactionand core focus

JOSM24,3

226

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

of the behavior of “lurkers”). Although this weakens the community significantly, theonline feature also allows for much more active involvement relative to what may takeplace without such a convenient medium. It allows also for relationships to form betweensubgroups of the community that may not otherwise have opportunity to interact.

Dimension Offline brand community Online brand community

Main mode of interaction Face-to-face VirtualHas social implications andmembers bring their true identityto the community and to theconsciousness of kind and moralresponsibilityFormal organizational structuresare beneficial and roles such aspresident, treasurer, secretaryoften become necessary

Virtual identity possible,anonymity possible, possiblywith less consciousness of kind,and less moral responsibilityInformal, less hierarchicalstructures are common, allowingfor a variety of designs andmodes of interactionInteraction is unconstrained bylocation and timeCommunity can be structuredalong any dimension besidesgeography

Geography and timedimensions

Geographically and timeconstrained; members typicallyhave to be present at the samelocation and same time to interactCommunity can be global butrequires a local chapter structureto facilitate face-to-faceinteraction where value creationtakes place

Costs to community members(time, effort and expenses)

Time and location constraintsimpose time and effort costs;location and hospitalityrequirements incur (financial)costsThreshold costs cut off lowinvolvement members fromparticipating in the community

Low cost of joining and beingpart of the communityLow threshold and hence a widerrange of engagement levels andforms of the members, possiblyaffecting consciousness of kindand moral responsibilityInvolvement can range from verylow to very highMany members may seekprimarily functional benefitsfrom an OBC (e.g. getting helpwith using, maintaining andrepairing a product)Many members may be passiveand only access content but donot contribute to the OBCFirms may use extrinsic benefits(e.g. discounts, lucky draws,loyalty points) to engage OBCmembers and motivate desiredbehaviors (e.g. postcontributions, recruit newmembers, provide word-of-mouth, or give feedback to thefirm)

Involvement with brand,firm and community

Brand often elicits high levels ofinvolvement, loyalty and emotionamong members; members arefrequently motivated to helpothersIntrinsic benefits (e.g. wanting tofeel connected) tend to prevail

Table I.Key differences betweenoffline and online brand

communities

Online brandcommunities

227

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

As demonstrated by the iMac and the King Arthur Flour communities, relationships getforged on the basis of the members’ shared interest in specific areas, including productsand models.

Funding and governance of OBCsHistorically, BCs have been supported or entirely funded by the brand owners (i.e. the firms),but governed largely by the local chapters who own the web sites where the communitiesreside. The local chapters also control the web site content and the interaction betweenmembers. The latter sometimes includes managing the antisocial behaviors thatare somewhat emboldened by the anonymity of web encounters, managing rumors, andthe like.

Figure 2 shows the funding and governance combinations that are common inOBCs. Harley Davidson, Blue Band and King Arthur Flour are examples of providerswho govern and fund their OBCs. Lego, by contrast, neither governs nor funds its OBC(called LUGNET), and SAAB is not in any way involved with its popular owner’s site(saabing.com).

Fournier and Lee (2009) recommend a hybrid approach to governance, in which firmsneither entirely control the community, nor completely abdicate responsibility.Concurring with this view, we find that firms tend to put corporate interests over thoseof the community, and that this significantly hampers the OBC’s vibrancy. In an activeand involved online community, control may be an illusion. Highly involved butdisillusioned members (e.g. members who oppose product changes) could at any pointdecide to build a parallel OBC that is beyond the reach of the firm. Acknowledging thepower of the consumer community, Hatch and Schultz (2010) go as far as to evensuggest a shared governance model for the brand itself that is based on co-creation withthe community.

Having discussed key dimensions and characteristics of OBCs, we turn ourattention in the following two sections to consumer and organization behavior.

Consumer perspective of OBCsIn engaging in an OBC, consumers aspire to obtain value from the organization andtheir brands. Positive experiences gained from these interactions serve to strengthen the

Figure 2.Funding and governancecombinations of OBCS

JOSM24,3

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

consumer’s relationship with the brand (Algesheimer et al., 2010). Active engagementin the form of membership continuance, participation, and giving and receivingrecommendations from other OBC members translate into brand loyalty and customeradvocacy (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Consumers who join and actively participate insuch BCs tend to increase in their willingness to adopt a firm’s new products and are lesslikely to embrace competing products (Thompson and Sinha, 2008).

In this section, we propose a conceptual framework for OBCs which encompassesthe drivers of consumer-OBC engagement, the moderators of the relationship behindthe drivers of OBC engagement and actual engagement, and the outcomes of OBCengagement for the consumer, the brand and the firm (Figure 3).

Online BC engagementOBC engagement refers to the positive influence of consumers identifying with an OBC.This is defined as the consumer’s intrinsic motivation to interact and cooperatewith community members. OBC engagement suggests that members are interested inhelping other members, keen to participate in joint activities, to act volitionally in waysthat the community endorses, and in ways that enhance the OBC’s value for themselvesand others (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Although Algesheimer et al. (2005) refer to BCengagement merely as an attitude (being interested in), we would like to argue that actualparticipation behavior is required as well. This is in line with van Doorn et al. (2010) whostate that customer engagement goes beyond attitude and that it is the customers’behavioral manifestation toward a brand or firm (beyond purchase) that resultsfrom their motivational drivers. According to the authors, there is a vast array ofcustomer engagement behaviors including word-of-mouth recommendations, helpingother consumers, blogging, writing reviews, and even engaging in legal action

Figure 3.Antecedents and outcomes

of consumer OBCengagement

Online brandcommunities

229

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

(van Doorn et al., 2010). Some of these behaviors fit perfectly well in the context of OBCs.Therefore, we define OBC engagement as an identification with the OBC that results ininteractive participation in the OBC (Brodie et al., 2011a).

It is generally easy for consumers to join an OBC and connect with other members.They get to remain anonymous and maintain privacy with little joining costs and exitbarriers (Table I). However, getting people to join an OBC requires an understanding ofthe path consumers follow when they engage with brands and other members of theOBC. We identified three basic brand related drivers that motivate consumerengagement in OBCs.

Brand-related driversBrand identification. Brand identification is a social construct that involves theintegration of perceived brand identity into self-identity. Brand identity refers to the setof brand associations from which a person derives functional, emotional, andself-expressive benefits (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). Such an identification can be anantecedent to the customer’s participation and affiliation with the community. Forinstance, Algesheimer et al. (2005) explore the idea of brand identification in the contextof European car clubs and find identifying with brands and their related BCs to havea positive influence on BC engagement. The consumers demonstrate high intrinsicmotivation to interact and cooperate with other community members. The authors thusinfer that a strong relationship with a brand can drive consumers to look for andinteract with like-minded consumers who share their enthusiasm. Moreover, anexisting identification with the brand is likely to facilitate integration and identificationwith the BC (Algesheimer et al., 2005). This implies that the BC may be more suitableand effective for experienced and already-engaged users of the brand.

Brand’s symbolic function. Customers may decide to participate in a BC becausethey want to live up to the brand’s symbolic function. Symbolic meaning is a keydimension of brand identity (Aaker, 1996) that often goes beyond the usual set ofassociations. Some brands such as Harley-Davidson, Nike and Apple reach iconicstatus partly because of their symbolic meaning. For such brands, a community mayfurther strengthen that meaning and offer a meeting place where members can expresstheir devotion (Ouwersloot and Odekerken-Schroder, 2008).

Social driversSocial benefits. Much like a traditional community, the community interaction facilitatedby the OBC provides a wider set of social and affectual benefits to its members (Muniz andO’Guinn, 2001). Consumers often participate in the community to seek assistance and helpfrom other members (Dholakia et al., 2009). For instance, it is quite common for sellers in theeBay Help Forums to share knowledge concerning fraudulent bidders, to spot price trends,and to give advice on auction listing tactics. In such cases, support discussions areinterlinked with social conversations (Dholakia et al., 2009). Such interactions promotebonding amongst OBC members, who then begin to identify more strongly with thecommunity. Such interactions also increase the social benefits members perceive, and inturn enhance their engagement in the OBC.

Social identity. Social identity theory asserts that self-concept is derived in part bypsychological membership in various social groups. People generally strive forpositive self-esteem, and such esteem can be derived from social group membership.

JOSM24,3

230

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Social identity is maintained and strengthened in social group members throughin-group, out-group comparisons (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). Research on BCs hasfocused explicitly on the interactions amongst consumers who identify with the samebrands, and who thus form a social group. The focus of such research is generally onthe collective self, or in other words, the self that is embedded in a collective (a BC) or insociety as a whole (Lam et al., 2010).

A number of long established consumer communities have cultivated such deepresonance amongst their members that being associated with the brand has become a wayfor members to assert their personal identity. While the HOG is an example of such acommunity, even brands that have not reached iconic status can induce people to join witha personal-identity approach. Such brands can, for example, build a community arounda marketing campaign for a cause, with members joining because of identification withthe cause more than with the brand itself. For instance, if the consumers’ identity ishealth-oriented, ways to support health programs in the developing world, petitions tosign or walkathons to join will reinforce the value of the consumers’ association with thebrand as it allows them an avenue to express their values.

Functional driversFunctional benefits. Functional benefits are frequently derived from the direct,information-based support that a consumer receives from the OBC (Dholakia et al., 2009).OBC members have enormous cumulative expertise that can be tapped on by members.They provide insight into a range of topics such as whether to make a particularpurchase, what products are recommended and why, potential causes of problems thatmay come up, viable solutions, and general tips on product usage (Dholakia et al., 2009).

Uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty reduction theory (URT) suggests that OBCs mayserve an important role in making a consumer more comfortable with a purchase decision(Adjei et al., 2010). URT suggests that the onset of a relationship is characterized by highlevels of uncertainty and relationship partners communicate and seek knowledge in orderto reduce their discomfort (Weiss et al., 2008). Ouwersloot and Odekerken-Schroder(2008) propose that BCs serve to reduce such discomfort and anxiety by providingreassurance about the product’s quality. This uncertainty reduction function is helpfuleven when the person seeking information already perceives herself to be a knowledgeableand experienced user of the product (Adjei et al., 2010; Mattila and Wirtz, 2002).

Information quality. Information quality is an important factor that defines the benefitsperceived by OCB participants (Dholakia et al., 2009). In an established OBC, communitymembers can easily turn to one another for brand-related information (Muniz and O’Guinn,2001). Broad-based and up-to-date information facilitates members’ learning, and OBCshave an unparalleled ability to facilitate interactive learning and communications (Porterand Donthu, 2008) for the collection and integration of knowledge (Wiertz and de Ruyter,2007). OBCs thus provide high levels of information credibility (Hung et al., 2011).

Monetary and explicit normative incentives. Firms often turn to monetary incentivessuch as loyalty points, lucky draws and price promotions to encourage participationand engagement in their OBCs. Monetary incentives have been shown to increaseshort-term participation intentions for all types of community members, with a strongereffect observed for passive compared to active members (Garnefeld et al., 2012). However,monetary rewards (i.e. an extrinsic motivator) tend to decrease the active onlinecommunity members’ long-term intentions to participate. Thus, there is a long-term

Online brandcommunities

231

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

crowding-out effect for active members such that the short-term gain obtained from amonetary incentive is traded off with a reduced willingness to participate in the long run.However, the positive impact of the monetary reward does not diminish for passivemembers because they do not experience a long-term crowding-out effect.

Explicit normative incentives, such as calls to adhere to norms of reciprocity andsolidarity, or to contribute to a common goal make the normative standards of thecommunity more salient and thus activate or increase feelings of obligation amongcommunity members. These incentives increase the active community members’willingness to participate in the short-term, but are insignificant for their long-termposting intentions. Such explicit normative incentives also fail to increase the willingnessof passive community members to contribute to the community, both immediately or inthe future (Garnefeld et al., 2012).

Moderators of the relationship between the drivers and OBC engagementA number of factors are proposed to moderate the relationship between the drivers andOBC engagement. These are discussed below.

Product factors.

(1) Product involvement – consumers participate in BCs to a level that reflectstheir involvement with the product. High-involvement purchases typically entailextensive pre-purchase searches (Arnould et al., 2002). When making such apurchase, consumers want to feel connected beyond the moment of consumptionand they feel a need to share the consumption experience with others(Zaichkowsky, 1985). OBCs provide such an opportunity for seeking out,connecting and sharing with like-minded others (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2002). Assuch, the level of involvement the consumer has with the product will intensify orweaken his engagement with an OBC.

(2) Product complexity – when the product in question is complicated, informationacquired from an OBC is often more valuable and more persuasive thanfirm-provided information (Adjei et al., 2010). Consumers are compelled toextend greater effort when evaluating complex products ( Johnson and Payne,1985). We expect therefore, that consumers will seek to simplify the decisionmaking task by relying more heavily on the information provided by other OBCmembers than when faced with a less complicated product (Adjei et al., 2010).As such, we advance that product complexity will moderate the effect of thedrivers on OBC engagement.

Situational OCB factors.

(1) Size of OBC – for a majority of OBC members’, social interactions occur withinsmall groups, typically comprising fewer than ten close friends. These friendsengage in regular and frequent face-to-face interactions with each other(Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006), and have stronger interpersonal relationships thanmembers of large BCs. Members of small group BCs tend also to express greaterinterest in participating for social ends and to feel more connected to thecommunity. The overall quality of their relationship with the group is higher, theydemonstrate greater engagement and greater normative pressure (Dholakia et al.,2004). As such, small group BCs are strongly socio-centric, with membershaving both a strong group identity and a strong association with the brand and

JOSM24,3

232

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

the demarcation between brand-related activities and the group’s social activitiestends to blur as the two intermingle.

In large BCs, individual members are more likely to identify with thecommunity as a whole, rather than with individual participants (Dholakia et al.,2004). Membership in such large communities may be sought for more functionalthan social reasons. For example, it may be easier to find an expert capable ofsolving a particular product-related problem in a large group than in a small one.On the flip side, members of such a group are likely to feel less of a connection tothe BC. Given the role of OBC size as a moderator of OBC engagement, firms maywant to use small group effects to build greater OBC engagement, for example bybuilding smaller subgroups that are united either by particular interests or bytheir belonging to a particular region.

(2) OBC governance – a fundamental contextual distinction can be made betweenOBCs based on who governs their web site and how (Adjei et al., 2010). Theperceptions of consumers as to the credibility of an information source differsbetween firm-governed OBCs that have been developed to promote the firm’sproducts, and the independent, community-governed OBCs that aim to bringtogether consumers with common brand-specific interests (Figure 1). Notsurprisingly, one study has found consumers to perceive the latter to be less biased(Xue and Phelps, 2004). Thus, we propose that corporate-governed OBC have lowerperceived information credibility with consumers than member-governed OBCs.

(3) Valence of information in the context of communication exchange refers to theextent to which the information reflects positively or negatively on the product inquestion (Adjei et al., 2010). Members of OBCs exchange both positive andnegative information in their conversations. In general, negative information hasbeen found to have a stronger effect than positive information in that negativeinformation has a more distinctive coding in memory (Ba and Pavlou, 2002).However, in the context of OBCs, it was found that positive information from anOBC has a stronger effect than negative information (Adjei et al., 2010) in that itprovides consumers with a much-needed confirmation of the suitability of theirchoice before they make a purchase. Although negative information may beshared by community members, the fact that that positive information has astronger effect should be encouraging to brands with OBCs. It indicates thatfirms with high product quality and good customer service can be less concernedabout the negative information posted online, provided a sufficient numberof positive comments are posted as well.

Customer factors.

(1) Customer expertise refers to the extent to which an individual perceives herselfto be knowledgeable, competent, trained, and experienced (Adjei et al., 2010).Consumers who view themselves as having high expertise generally place lessvalue on the information provided by others than less informed consumers(Punj and Staelin, 1983; Mattila and Wirtz, 2002).

However, in research conducted more specifically on OBCs, it was found thatmember communications reduced the uncertainty surrounding a product, evenwhen the individuals seeking information perceived themselves to have highproduct knowledge and experience (Adjei et al., 2010). A more detailed analysis

Online brandcommunities

233

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

revealed an interaction between communication quality and personal expertise.Specifically, people with high expertise asked very specific and technicalquestions, whereas those with low expertise tended to ask broader and moregeneral questions. In addition, experienced consumers were found to be betterequipped to sift through large amounts of information more efficiently andeffectively, and they processed it better than novices. Thus, we advance thatcustomer expertise and level of information moderate OBC engagement.

(2) Membership duration has been shown to influence the adoption of new productsamong OBC members. Specifically, longer term members are more likely to adopta new product from the preferred brand and will adopt it faster compared toshort-term members. Long-term members are also less likely to adopt newproducts from competing brands, and to do so more slowly (Thompson andSinha, 2008).

Outcomes of customer OBC engagementOBC outcomesA customer’s engagement in an OBC s is likely to have a number of outcomes,including the customer’s continuing participation in the OBC, a sense of satisfactionwith the OBC, and increased trust in and commitment to the OBC.

Commitment and intention to continue participation in an OBC. The long-termsurvival of an OBC depends greatly on its members’ commitment and continuedparticipation in the community relationships. Such commitment and participation areparticularly important in the online context, as members can switch to an alternativeOBC with just a few easy clicks. To ensure vitality and longevity, members need to becohesive and have a strong sense of belonging (Wellman and Gulia, 1999). Severalstudies have confirmed that OBC participation contributes positively to communitycommitment ( Jang et al., 2008; Casalo et al., 2007). An analysis of a large data set fromstudies involving OBCs further confirms the positive influence of OBC participation onmembers’ intention to continue community membership (Woisetschlager et al., 2008).

OBC satisfaction and loyalty. In engaging in an OBC, consumers strive to gainknowledge and increase their social interaction. When an OBC s meets or exceedsconsumers’ expectation in achieving these goals, they are likely to be satisfied with theOBC (Woisetschlager et al., 2008). Satisfaction with the OBC has a direct effect onconsumers’ intention to carry out behaviors such as saying positive things about thebrand, recommending it to others, and remaining loyal to it in their purchasing decisions.

At the same time, consumers’ knowledge driven interactions with other membersleads to a strengthening of in-group consciousness, and active engagement results inincreased satisfaction with the knowledge and social interaction gained from the OBCs(Schouten et al., 2007). Stronger community engagement has also been shown to lead tolasting membership continuance (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Hence, we suggest that highOBC engagement has a positive effect on community members’ satisfaction and loyaltyto the OBC.

Brand outcomesActive consumer engagement in OBCs is likely to strengthen the brand through thefostering of higher brand commitment, spirited brand engagement, brand satisfactionand brand loyalty.

JOSM24,3

234

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Brand commitment and engagement. Consumers with strong OBC commitmenttend to have stronger brand commitment (Kim, J.H. et al., 2008) and they become vestedin the successes and failures of that brand (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). One can assumethen that individuals who are committed to an OBC are more likely to develop positiveattitudes and behaviors toward the brand.

A consumer’s engagement in an OBC not surprisingly also enhances his or her overallbrand engagement. Consumer engagement has theoretical roots within the expandeddomain of relationship marketing which emphasizes the notions of interactivity andcustomer experience (Vivek et al., 2012). Mollen and Wilson (2010, p. 5) defined brandengagement in an online contexts as “the cognitive and affective commitment to an activerelationship with the brand as personified by the web site or other computer-mediatedentities designed to communicate brand value.” Brand engagement encapsulates aninteractive relationship with the brand, and requires the perception of experiential valuein addition to instrumental value to be obtained from interactions with the brand.

Brand satisfaction and loyalty. From a consumer point of view, engagement behaviorsare motivated by the satisfaction of needs, and the gain of benefits from the behavioritself. Consumer engagement is believed to be directly and positively related to a numberof brand relationship outcomes including satisfaction, trust, affective commitment, andloyalty (Brodie et al., 2011b). It seems reasonable then to assume that if a consumer’sengagement with an OBC creates value, this will increase his or her brand satisfaction.Also, strategic initiatives purporting to elevate relevant customer brand-engagementlevels are expected to generate enhanced customer loyalty outcomes (Hollebeek, 2011).McAlexander et al. (2002) found that brand loyalty can be further strengthened byengaging its BC.

A stronger community engagement leads to stronger membership continuance andcommunity recommendation intentions in a BC context (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Thishas been reiterated by Kim and Jung (2007) who state that community loyalty and wordof mouth are key potential outcomes of community participation. Thus, we propose thatcustomers’ engagement in OBCs will strengthen their brand loyalty.

Organizational perspective to OBCsSeveral trends point to the need for organizations to strongly consider the establishmentand management of OBCs. Consumers increasingly rely on the internet for informationand purchases (Kim, J.H. et al., 2008; Shankar et al., 2003), which is especially true forGeneration Y (broadly defined as people born between 1981 and 1999) who are the firstgeneration to have spent their entire lives in the digital environment (Bolton et al., 2013).Worldwide, 32.7 percent of the population uses the internet, and this number is increasingevery year. There was a 528.1 percent growth in internet usage between the years 2000and 2011 (www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm). Congruently, more and more peopleuse OBCs as a platform to exchange and share ideas. However, there is relatively littleresearch that addresses issues surrounding OBCs from the perspective of organizations(Porter et al., 2011).

Advantages of OBCs for organizationsOBCs are an important new development for businesses because they enhance theorganization’s relationship with people (Fournier and Lee, 2009). This developmentdoes not only concern the organization’s consumers, but anyone interested and active

Online brandcommunities

235

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

in the market, including employees, users of competing brands and market experts.Overall, consumers’ OBC engagement benefits organizations in four main ways(see the last column of Figure 3).

First, since members openly exchange their opinions and experiences with brandedproducts, OBCs become an important source of consumer data that will aid theorganization in its market research (Kim, J.W. et al., 2008; Kozinets, 2002). The OBCprovides unprecedented levels of “access to the voice of loyal customers” (Kim, J.W. et al.,2008, p. 409). Communication between the organization and its community of usersis promoted, and it can provide valuable insight into the strengths and weaknessesof both new and established products and services (Kumar et al., 2013). Thus, OBCscan help organizations gain insight into consumer needs, desirable features of newproducts, and trends for future product or service development (Kim, J.H. et al., 2008).

A second related benefit of OBCs and the use of social media in general is in the culturalchange they can promote in a company. OBCs can stimulate communication amongseveral departments involved in the development of a new product (Kim, J.H. et al., 2008),and generate important insights that help extend the reach of marketing efforts. Thisincreased opportunity for collaboration across departments and geographical locationsoften results in greater productivity and decreased deficiencies (Benhoff and Li, 2008). Forexample, the marketing and product development departments may fight less aboutpriorities because they now share a platform that provides a clear view of consumerdemand (Benhoff and Li, 2008).

Third, OBCs benefit brands. Online communities have been found to strengthen therelationship with the brand, enhance brand commitment, and online community membershave been found to build stronger associations with the brand than nonparticipatingconsumers (Kim, J.W. et al., 2008). As discussed in the section on consumer behavior,stronger OBC engagement is likely to result in more intensive engagement with the brand,higher brand satisfaction, brand trust, commitment, loyalty, and advocacy, all of whichhelp to increase brand equity.

Finally, OBCs have been found to be effective tools for influencing sales. They havea direct positive impact on immediate purchase intention (Blazevic et al., 2013), and areeffective tools for retaining both experienced and novice consumers (Adjei et al., 2010).The increased brand equity can further improve brand performance in an indirect way.Brands with higher equity have been shown to be able to command higher pricepremiums, enjoy greater trade support and cooperation, and be more effective in theircommunication among other things (Keller, 2008).

Challenges of managing OBCsWhile much of the popular literature and even the extant research emphasizes thenumerous opportunities and advantages OBCs offer, the inception of an OBC also presentsa number of challenges to organizations and their brands. For example, OBCs can becomea magnet for anti-brand comments and discussion. People can use the OBC to postinformation about the negative influence of the brand’s product on issues of social concern.Anti-band communities include those targeted at Amway and the “Boycott Nike” site(Maclaren and Catterall, 2002). Communication in such communities can be dominated bya few members to express their opinion on issues unrelated to the brand.

As an OBC is closely linked with its brand in the minds of its members,everything that takes place within the community becomes associated with the brand.

JOSM24,3

236

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Therefore, if anti-brand comments and discussions take place, associations are createdthat differ from the intended, and the OBCs themselves can bring about brand equitydilution (Buchanan et al., 1999). Managing this is an especially difficult and delicatetask as members need to feel the freedom to express their opinions for the communityto function well. In addition to sharing similar interests, OBC members participatevoluntarily and expect to have an active voice in the community (Kim, J.W. et al., 2008).

Many brands already have both on and off-line BCs. If on- and off-line communicationsare not in conformity, confusion ensues which may weaken the strength and uniquenessof any pre-existing associations. Ideally then, all communication levels need to be keptconsistent. However, this is hard to achieve in an OBC, especially when it is governed bymembers rather than the firm.

Managing an OBC also requires the allocation of sufficient resources and thedevelopment of relevant expertise. More importantly, it requires an organization-widecommitment and willingness to work across functional boundaries (Fournier and Lee,2009). Although OBCs are not corporate assets and therefore cannot be fully controlled(Fournier and Lee, 2009), brand managers should take responsibility for governingthe OBCs by providing support and by replacing control with a balance of structure andflexibility. They should participate as community co-creators, and facilitate and nurtureOBCs by creating and maintaining conditions in which communities can thrive.Consistent with this reasoning, Benhoff and Li (2008) emphasize that social applications(including OBCs) require flexibility and nimbleness from their creators. More specifically,Adjei et al. (2010) found that in the control and governance of OBCs, it is important to focuson enhancing the quality of the information shared in the community, and that this is amuch more important and challenging task for OBCs than for offline BCs.

As summarized in Table I, OBCs exist in a virtual world in which their membershave the ability to remain anonymous. This raises additional challenges in that themoral pressure on members to behave and interact in ethically acceptable ways ismuch lower than that in an offline BC. Additionally, OBC members can include peoplefrom all over the world who communicate and interpret messages in different ways,sometimes resulting in misunderstanding.

The engagement of consumers is another challenge, critical to an OBC’s success(Fournier and Lee, 2009). Porter et al. (2011) suggest that it is important to first understandconsumer needs and motivations before promoting participation and motivatingcooperation. Unless there is an element of co-ownership of the brand, a true relationshipbetween the firm and the community cannot exist. Therefore, it is essential to engagecommunity members such that they are privy to the more internal aspects of theorganization. This starts with the development of adequate communication betweenconsumers and employees. According to Ramaswamy (2009, p. 33) “without organizationalcapabilities that align outside-in ‘customer to employee’ experience with inside-out‘employee to customer’ experience, the co-creation of value with clients would be difficult toachieve.” The author also emphasizes the importance of empowered employees who have asay in solving consumers’ problems. Therefore, in addition to consumer engagement,employee engagement is essential for a community because shared experiences leave longlasting impressions on both co-producers.

Overall, whether and how much the organization and its brand(s) enjoy the benefitsand suffer from the possible negative effects of OBCs depends on the quality ofcommunication within the community.

Online brandcommunities

237

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Setting organizational objectives for the OBCsOrganizations determine the objectives of their OBCs based on their resources,capabilities, and overall strategic priorities. From our review, it appears that OBCobjectives can be broadly grouped into four categories:

(1) as a resource for creative ideas in order to improve products and services;

(2) as a supporting tool for changing the company culture;

(3) to improve brand image and relations with consumers; and

(4) to increase sales.

While all four objectives can be pursued simultaneously, most companies wouldbenefit from prioritization, particularly when they have limited resources. Such astrategic prioritization should also help address the challenges in managing OBCs.

In sum, we suggest that companies be proactive in establishing and managing theirOBCs, as the benefit arising from an OBC far exceeds the risk associated with them (Adjeiet al., 2010).

Summary, conclusions and future researchSummary and conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of OBCs in facilitating networks of relationshipsbetween providers, consumers and users who are united by the value they attach toengaging in a relationship with a brand. Four dimensions of OBCs were identified assignificantly shaping their nature, namely brand orientation, internet-use, funding andgovernance. The interplay of the first two dimensions is shown in Figure 1. Table Icontrasts the characteristics of fully online and fully offline BCs, and highlights someof the unique characteristics of OBCs. The online versus offline continuum is the mostimportant dimension, and poses multiple implications for BCs. Figure 2 shows thepossible funding and governance constellations of OBCs.

The interactivity promoted by consumers’ engagement with an OBC is generallymutually beneficial. Figure 3 shows the framework as conceived in this study of OBCdrivers (brand-related, social and functional) and outcomes (OBC- and brand-related),as well as potential moderators of the relationship between the two (product, customerand situational factors).

This study also examines key factors surrounding OBCs from the corporateperspective. We recommend that companies be proactive in supporting theestablishment and development of their OBCs as they provide valuable insights intothe way customers perceive their products. Such an insight allows for the developmentof new products embedded with greater value, and promotes a more customer-centriccompany culture in which close customer relationships are nurtured in the interest ofincreasing sales.

Further researchHaving presented a cogent conceptual framework for understanding OBCs, the nextstep is to test and further develop the models proposed in Table I, and in Figures 1-3.Building on our review of the literature and this conceptual framework, the followingare specific research priorities that we have identified:

JOSM24,3

238

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

. Empirically test the differences between online and offline BCs as proposed inTable I. Explore when and how firms should add online BCs to their offline BCs,and vice versa.

. Explore when OBCs should be primarily focused on the focal brand, and whenthey should be focused on wider shared interests that are related to the brand(Figure 1).

. Explore the criteria for determining when it is more beneficial for the firm togovern the OBC, and when the consumer should assume control. Similarly, explorecriteria by which to determine what the balance of funding should be between theconsumer and the firm (Figure 2)?

. Empirically test the drivers and their moderators of OBC engagement asproposed in Figure 3. Explore when and how OBCs can be effective in nurturingrelationships between customers, and between customers and the brand.

. Empirically test the impact of OBC engagement on brand performance (Figure 3).

. Develop a valid and reliable scale with which to measure OBC engagement.

Changing technologies allowing for more instantaneous, visual forms of communicationcan be co-opted to promote greater social awareness and customer engagement. We knowvery little about the influence of visual communication channels such as smart phonesand tablets (Lariviere et al., 2013) and their role in enhancing customer engagement withOBCs. Further research should explore how OBC members make use of new technologiesto connect and interact with their communities.

Another important area is that of consumer insight. We need to know, for example,how consumers can be segmented according to their propensity for OBC engagementand what drives this engagement. What are the roles of personality characteristics,personal backgrounds and cultural differences in such a segmentation? Answeringthese questions would help brands to focus their efforts on the most promisingconsumers and to tailor a value proposition for their OBC engagement.

The notion that consumers create a personal relationship with the brand is centralfor most firms’ interest in OBCs. Further research is needed to identify the mostimportant mechanisms for maintaining an on-going community-brand relationshipthat allows consumers to experience intimacy and emotional engagement with thebrand. Future research can also develop contingency models with which to facilitatedecision making on the most suitable organizational structure, governance model, andfunding arrangement for the effective functioning and development of an OBC.Additional questions to ask are what organizational processes and strategies contributeto the effective management of OBCs, who within an organization should be responsiblefor the management of the OBC, and how companies sustain engagement in OBCswithout exerting too much control. It is also important to explore more creative ways toaddress the common challenges faced by OBCs such as the inappropriate behavior ofsome members. Addressing these questions would provide firms with valuableguidance on how to make strategic use of their OBCs, and will help them formulate andimplement effective strategies to manage their brands in a global economic environmentwhere online social networks are becoming increasingly influential.

Finally, further research is required to examine the applicability of our proposedframeworks in contexts that differ in their focus, for example between B2B and B2C

Online brandcommunities

239

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

oriented firms, between goods and services, and between for profit ventures and not forprofit ones. There is a lot of scope for further work and we hope this article will inspiremore conceptual, theoretical and empirical research on OBCs.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Adjei, M.T., Noble, S.M. and Noble, C.H. (2010), “The influence of C2C communications in onlinebrand communities on customer purchase behavior”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 634-653.

Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brand community:evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34.

Algesheimer, R., Borle, S., Dholakia, U.M. and Singh, S.S. (2010), “The impact of customercommunity participation on customer behaviors: an empirical investigation”, MarketingScience, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 756-769, 779-781.

Ambler, T. (1992), Need-to-Know-Marketing, Century Business, London.

Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2002), Consumers, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin,Boston, MA.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.

Ba, S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2002), “Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronicmarkets: price premiums and buyer behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 243-268.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), “Antecedents and purchase consequences of customerparticipation in small group brand communities”, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, p. 45.

Bender, B. (1978), “Gatherer-Hunter to farmer: a social perspective”, World Archaeology, Vol. 10No. 2, pp. 204-222.

Benhoff, J. and Li, C. (2008), “Harnessing the power of the Oh-So-Social Web”, MIT SloanManagement Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 35-42.

Blazevic, V., Hammedi, W., Garnefeld, I., Rust, R.T., Keiningham, T., Andreassen, T.W.,Donthu, N. and Carl, W. (2013), “Beyond traditional word-of-mouth: an expanded model ofcustomer-driven influence”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 294-313.

Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T.,Loureiro, Y.K. and Solnet, D. (2013), “Understanding Generation Y and their use of socialmedia: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3,pp. 245-267.

Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Jurlic, B. and Ilic, A. (2011a), “Customer engagement; conceptualdomain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of ServiceResearch, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 252-271.

Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Biljana, J. and Hollebeek, L. (2011b), “Consumer engagement in a virtualbrand community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1,pp. 314-329.

Buchanan, L., Simmons, C.J. and Bickart, B.A. (1999), “Brand equity dilution: retailer display andcontext brand effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 345-366.

Casalo, L., Flavian, C. and Guinalıu, M. (2007), “The impact of participation in virtual brandcommunities on consumer trust and loyalty: the case of free software”, Online InformationReview, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 775-792.

JOSM24,3

240

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

De Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998), “Defining a ‘brand’: beyond the literature withexperts’ interpretations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 417-443.

Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Pearo, L.K. (2004), “A social influence model of consumerparticipation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities”, InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-263.

Dholakia, U.M., Blazevic, V., Wiertz, C. and Algesheimer, R. (2009), “Communal service delivery:how customers benefit from participation in firm-hosted virtual P3 communities”, Journalof Service Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 208-226.

Fournier, S. and Lee, L. (2009), “Getting brand communities right”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 87 No. 4.

Garnefeld, I., Iseke, A. and Krebs, A. (2012), “Explicit incentives in online communities: boon orbane?”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 11-38.

Gruen, T.W. and Ferguson, J.M. (1994), “Using membership as a marketing tool: issues andapplications”, Relationship Marketing: Theory, Methods, and Applications, June, pp. 60-64.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2010), “Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications forbrand governance”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 590-604.

Hollebeek, L.D. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807.

Hughes, D.E. and Ahearne, M. (2010), “Energizing the reseller’s sales force: the power of brandidentification”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, July, pp. 81-96.

Hung, K., Li, S.Y. and Tse, D.T. (2011), “Interpersonal trust and platform credibility in a Chinesemulti brand online community effects on brand variety seeking and time spent”, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 99-112.

Jang, H., Olfman, L., Ko, I., Koh, J. and Kim, K. (2008), “The influence of on-line brand communitycharacteristics on community commitment and brand loyalty”, International Journal ofElectronic Commerce, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 57-80.

Johnson, E.J. and Payne, J.W. (1985), “Effort and accuracy in choice”, Management Science,Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 395-414.

Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kim, J.H., Bae, Z.T. and Kang, S.H. (2008), “The role of online brand community in new productdevelopment: case studies on digital product manufacturers in Korea”, InternationalJournal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 357-376.

Kim, J.W., Choi, J.H., Qualls, W. and Han, K.S. (2008), “It takes a marketplace community to raisebrand commitment: the role of online communities”, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 409-431.

Kim, K.H. and Jung, Y.M. (2007), “Website evaluation factors and virtual community loyalty inKorea”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 231-252.

Kozinets, R.V. (2002), “The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research inonline communities”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 61-72.

Kumar, V., Chattaraman, V., Neghina, C., Skiera, B., Aksoy, L., Buoye, A. and Henseler, J. (2013),“Data-driven services marketing in a connected world”, Journal of Service Management,Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 330-352.

Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y. and Schillewaert, N. (2010), “Resistance to brand switching whena radically new brand is introduced: a social identity theory perspective”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 128-146.

Online brandcommunities

241

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Lariviere, B., Joosten, H., Malthouse, E.C., Van Birgelen, M., Aksoy, P., Kunz, W. andHuang, M.-H. (2013), “Value fusion: the blending of consumer and firm value in the distinctcontext of mobile technologies and social media”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24No. 3, pp. 268-293.

Lovelock, C. and Wirtz, J. (2007), Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 7th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J. and Koening, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.

Maclaren, P. and Catterall, M. (2002), “Researching the social web: marketing information fromvirtual communities”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 319-326.

Manchanda, P., Packard, G. and Pattabhiramaiah, A. (2012), “Social dollars: the economic impactof customer participation in a firm-sponsored online community”, MSI Report No. 11-115.

Mattila, A. and Wirtz, J. (2002), “The impact of knowledge types on the consumer searchprocess – an investigation in the context of credence services”, International Journal ofService Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 214-230.

Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, te Triandis lepresence and interactivity in onlineconsumer experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 63, pp. 919-925.

Muniz, A.M. Jr and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-432.

Ouwersloot, H. and Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2008), “Who’s who in brand communities – andwhy?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 571-585.

Porter, C., Donthu, N., MacElroy, W.H. and Wydra, D. (2011), “How to foster and sustainengagement in virtual communities”, California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 4,pp. 80-110.

Porter, C.E. and Donthu, N. (2008), “Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtualcommunities”, Management Science, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 113-128.

Punj, G.N. and Staelin, R. (1983), “A model of consumer information search behavior for newautomobiles”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 366-380.

Ramaswamy, V. (2009), “Leading the transformation to co-creation of value”, Strategy& Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 32-37.

Schau, H.J., Muniz, A.M. Jr and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How brand community practices createvalue”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.

Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. and Koenig, H.F. (2007), “Transcendent customer experienceand brand community”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 3,pp. 357-368.

Shankar, V., Smith, A. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty in onlineand offline environments”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 153-175.

Thompson, S.A. and Sinha, R.K. (2008), “Brand communities and new product adoption: theinfluence and limits of oppositional loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 65-80.

van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010),“Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.

Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Consumer engagement: exploring customerrelationships beyond purchase”, Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-146.

JOSM24,3

242

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Weiss, A.M., Lurie, N.H. and MacInnis, D.J. (2008), “Listening to strangers: whose responses arevaluable, how valuable are they, and why?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45,pp. 425-436.

Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. (1999), “Net-surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities ascommunities”, in Wellman, B. (Ed.), Networks in the Global Village: Life in ContemporaryCommunities, Westview, Boulder, CO.

Wiertz, C. and de Ruyter, K. (2007), “Beyond the call of duty: why customers contribute tofirm-hosted commercial online communities”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, p. 347.

Woisetschlager, D.M., Hartleb, V. and Blut, M. (2008), “How to make brand communities work:antecedents and consequences of consumer participation”, Journal of RelationshipMarketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-256.

Xue, F. and Phelps, J. (2004), “Internet-facilitated consumer-to-consumer communication: themoderating role of receiver characteristics”, International Journal of Internet Marketingand Advertising, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 121-136.

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-352.

Further reading

Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), “Social ties and word-of mouth referral behavior”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 350-362.

Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K. and Lam, S.S. (2010), “Is customer participation in value creation adouble-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 48-64.

De Souza, C.S. and Preece, J. (2004), “A framework for analyzing and understanding onlinecommunities”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 579-610.

About the authorsJochen Wirtz is Professor of Marketing at the National University of Singapore and the foundingdirector of the UCLA-NUS Executive MBA. His more than ten books include Services Marketing:People, Technology, Strategy (Prentice Hall, 7th edition, 2011, co-authored with ChristopherLovelock), Essentials of Services Marketing (Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 2012), and Flying High in aCompetitive Industry: Secrets of the World’s Leading Airline (McGraw Hill, 2009). For freedownloads of his work and selected book chapters see www.JochenWirtz.com. Jochen Wirtz isthe corresponding author and can be contacted at: bizwirtz@nus.edu.sg

Anouk den Ambtman is a PhD candidate at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlandsand University of Namur in Belgium. Her research focuses on service innovation and innovationportfolio management decision making, with a specific focus on the role of group cognitiveprocesses.

Josee Bloemer is Full Professor of Marketing at the Radboud University Nijmegen, TheNetherlands and is affiliated to the Institute for Management Research. Her main researchinterests are consumer behavior, services marketing, international marketing, advertisingmanagement and market research. She has many international publications in, for instance, theInternational Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal ofEconomic Psychology, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Service Management and theInternational Journal of Human Resource Management.

Csilla Horvath is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Radboud University Nijmegen,The Netherlands and is affiliated to the Institute for Management Research. Her researchinterests include modeling dynamic marketing processes, branding, self-control, andharmful consumer behavior. She has published in journals such as Marketing Science,

Online brandcommunities

243

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Journal of Marketing Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, MarketingLetters and International Journal of Forecasting.

B. Ramaseshan is the Foundation Professor of Marketing, School of Marketing, CurtinUniversity, Australia. His research work has been published in several journals including theJournal of Marketing, Marketing Science, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal ofRetailing and Journal of Service Research. He was the Vice-President (International Membership)of the Academy of Marketing Science from 2004 to 2006.

Joris van de Klundert chairs the Department of Health Services Management & Organisationat the Institute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdamm, where he isalso director of education. He holds a PhD in Operations Research from Maastricht University(1996) and is a former President of the Dutch Operations Research Society. He has published inleading scientific journals such as Manufacturing and Service Operations Management andOperations Research. His current research focusses on health service operations.

Zeynep Gurhan Canli is Migros Professor of Marketing at Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.She completed her PhD in Marketing at New York University Stern School of Business. Prior tojoining Koc University, she was a tenured faculty member at Ross School of Business, Universityof Michigan. She has published several articles in leading academic journals such as Journal ofConsumer Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology and Journal of Marketing Research. She isthe director of the Graduate School of Business at Koc University.

Dr Jay Kandampully is Professor of Services Management and Hospitality at The Ohio StateUniversity, USA. He is the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Service Management, and serves onthe editorial advisory board of 12 refereed international journals. He holds a PhD in ServiceManagement, and an MBA, with specialization in Services Marketing, both from the Universityof Exeter, UK. He is the author of the book Services Management: The New Paradigm inHospitality, and the editor of the book Service Management: The New Paradigm in Retailing, bothof which have been translated into Chinese. He is also the lead editor of the book, Service QualityManagement in Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, which has been translated into Chinese,Korean and Arabic. He has published over 100 articles in journals such as: Journal of ServiceManagement, European Journal of Marketing, The Service Industries Journal, Managing ServiceQuality and Journal of Product & Brand Management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

JOSM24,3

244

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Edward C. Malthouse, Michael Haenlein, Bernd Skiera, Egbert Wege, Michael Zhang. 2013. ManagingCustomer Relationships in the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House. Journal ofInteractive Marketing 27, 270-280. [CrossRef]

2. Souad Djelassi, Isabelle Decoopman. 2013. Customers' participation in product development throughcrowdsourcing: Issues and implications. Industrial Marketing Management 42, 683-692. [CrossRef]

3. Lerzan Aksoy, Allard van Riel, Jay Kandampully, Bart Larivière, Herm Joosten, Edward C. Malthouse,Marcel van Birgelen, Pelin Aksoy, Werner H. Kunz, Ming‐Hui Huang. 2013. Value fusion. Journal ofService Management 24:3, 268-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Lerzan Aksoy, Allard van Riel, Jay Kandampully, V. Kumar, Veena Chattaraman, Carmen Neghina,Bernd Skiera, Lerzan Aksoy, Alexander Buoye, Joerg Henseler. 2013. Data‐driven services marketing ina connected world. Journal of Service Management 24:3, 330-352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by S

telle

nbos

ch U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:22

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)